Laserfiche WebLink
I* Current legal framewoMP <br />? <br />C)nly thc C'WCB may hold a water right for <br />"niinimum flows hctwecn specific points on <br />natural streams as arc rcquired to preserve ihe <br />natural environment to a reasonable degree." <br />However, in Ciry e7f Thvtnlun v. Ciry of Fort <br />Cullins, the Colorado Supteme Coun granted a <br />water right to the City of Fort C:ollins for a <br />ho.u ehute and fish laddcr locatcd within t.he <br />Cnche La Poudre River. <br />?he Suprenie Cuurt held thpt boat chutes and <br />fish ladders pre structures that roncentrate the <br />17ow of water. Therefore, they may qualify as a <br />'structure or devicc' that conirolt water in its <br />»atural course or tocation (:uid thus quulify for <br />a water right) under scction 37-92-103(7)." <br />Rccognizing that boat chules may be eligible <br />I'or a water riglu, the next c:unrern is ensuring <br />ttic water right heing i-equested is reasonable <br />-and appropriatc to accomplish without waate <br />Prublems racing Water }tights Holders and Applicants <br />the purpotie tur whicli thc apprul>riutiori is <br />1awfuJly madc.... <br />Unless the CWCl3 is plficed in a stewardship <br />role, reviewing issucs o}'cim(rol and w:itor <br />utiliz,ation, these imsues must Ue resolvcd in a <br />Water court proreeding. Such proceedings <<rc. <br />vcry time rontuming and cxFx;nsive. Thc <br />CWCA, in fulf Iling its mi.sic.m, 17(e5 <br />Statements of Oppositicm in all cases involving <br />rccreational w,itcr rights. <br />Givcn the broad laaguugc in the Fort Collins <br />case, the CWCB c3oes not have much room to <br />negotiate agreements that strike a haI.mce <br />between the dcsirc Ior recreatiunal intitreseui <br />flows and the needs for futurc water <br />development. Legislation to clerify the: roles <br />and responsibilities of thi: CWCB, the Waler <br />couri and water rights applicants is greatly <br />needed. <br />Sinre the tiling of applirations by Littleton and Golden, many water users anJ inletesteJ observer5 have <br />cxpresscd conccrns about thcsc typcs of applications. Ttaese typcs of applicat.ions could: 1) liiniler water <br />developmcnt by limiting exchange Potential; 2) prevcnt Colorado from hc:ing able to use a11 of the w.»cc <br />resotirccs allocated under existing cotnpact cn[itlements; and 3) detract fram thc State's instrcarn t7ow <br />progr:irii hy essentially authorizing private instream flow water rights. <br />The existinX law is ezsily cxpandable. The Fnrt Col/ins holding merely requires a w;iler user to <br />ccmcentratc the flow of water t.o serve an intended purpose. Currently cit;es are seeking to protc;rt flows <br />througli boat chutes and boulder clusters, others may attempt to protect a flow ihrough a reach witb <br />c:omrol serurwres as small as a)arge roek, or an old fallen tree. <br />Summarv of Recreationai ln5tream Flow Diversion Events <br />1)tc AVDlicant Maximum Requcsted ApUronriation Rivur <br />1986 City of Fart Collins SS cfs (txfure the Supreme Court) C'iirtic La PuuJre <br />1992 temanded 30 cfs/S cfs (pwtvdeJ by the water cuwi) <br />1994 LitQelue 1W cfs Snuth F'Ia1Ie Kiver <br />1998 (iulde:n 1000 cfs Cleat Creek <br />2(X)p Brvckcnridge 524 e[s Blue Rivcr <br />2q(N) Eaglc River W&SD 4(*M) cfs Cinre Crcek <br />2000 City of Aspen 350 cfs Koaring f7ork Kivr,r